Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I'm with Soladrin on the Blu-Ray, I only know one person who has one and there's pretty much no conceivable reason to get one. On an HDTV the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is so trivial that if you're worrying that much about picture quality, you're probably not going to enjoy what you're watching either way. Being able to see the fibers in some guy's shirt doesn't change the movie you're watching.

Or even makes it worse, I never liked HD TV, people look like dolls because of all the make up.

Also, I have a PC and theres a thing called digital distribution. I have a 60mb connection so there's really no point for me to ever go for a phsyical copy of.. anything.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

It's all about the frame rate + graphics bro.

...cue in PC master race

PC has always been and will always be the leading platform when it comes to graphics. Where consoles should shine is local multiplayer. Nintendo got it right. For all next gen consoles... I mean...just buy a controller and play the same game on PC. Better graphics, mods etc. The Xbox 180° tries to be a multimedia console but fails at it since it blocks all but US users from using the features and everyone already got a Blu-Ray player to begin with.

I don't have a blue ray player and I see no reason to get one.

Mine originally was a "gak, whatcha gonna buy!" christmas gift for my fiancee because she loves movies, but I have never looked back. You can really recognize the improved visual quality (when I wear my glasses, that is ) and it also upscales DVDs further enhancing their quality too. Plus: they are dirt cheap right now.

But yeah, most of the stuff we watch comes directly from Hulu / Netflix. We mostly use it when a few friends come over.

Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

 Necroshea wrote:
Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

I'm not sure about that last part. The disappearing bodies is due to the frame rate drops that accompany the processors handling all the extra polygons... and models will likely get a big bump in poly count with the next generation commensurate with the bump in processing power. LOL, I remember when the original Gears of War came out with the annex game mode, they set the bodies to disappear after 30-60 seconds in an engine that was built to handle only 8 models at a time; when they added all the extra corpses you could trip over and manipulate, the frame rate eventually dropped to the single digits if the control point was near a spawn. It's quite likely that the new consoles would be able to handle the current console graphics with persistent bodies for the entirety of matches but likely we'll only see a partial increase in that part. Destructable environments I would hope would be a big improvement and we'll likely see if that's possible with BF4 since that was a big part of the franchise.

 warboss wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

I'm not sure about that last part. The disappearing bodies is due to the frame rate drops that accompany the processors handling all the extra polygons... and models will likely get a big bump in poly count with the next generation commensurate with the bump in processing power. LOL, I remember when the original Gears of War came out with the annex game mode, they set the bodies to disappear after 30-60 seconds in an engine that was built to handle only 8 models at a time; when they added all the extra corpses you could trip over and manipulate, the frame rate eventually dropped to the single digits if the control point was near a spawn. It's quite likely that the new consoles would be able to handle the current console graphics with persistent bodies for the entirety of matches but likely we'll only see a partial increase in that part. Destructable environments I would hope would be a big improvement and we'll likely see if that's possible with BF4 since that was a big part of the franchise.

Yeah but what if we left the graphics at what they are right now, and only poured the additional power into things like destructible environment, more bodies/people/units on the screen at a time, and keeping the game at a smooth 60fps? Maybe the average game looks like Battlefield 3, but instead of a mere 16 people per side you can have a whopping 64 per side (on consoles). Instead of having bodies stay for only 30 seconds, they can stay for an hour, and you can support up to 500 on screen at once without ever going below 60fps. You could have massive destructible environments, with cratering, bullet holes, realistic physics and weather, and all sorts of crazy things. You would have immensely improved games, and to brutally honest, most people would never notice that the graphics were the same. Heck, they'd probably think they'd improved with all the new things happening on screen.

I would take that over pointlessly shiny graphics every day of the week. It's getting to the point where we're just having improved graphics to have a sticker on the box and bragging rights for when people have idiotic console wars on forums (not here, talking about sites like /v/, the escapist, etc.). The diminishing returns are getting smaller and smaller every cycle. At this point it's just becoming a detriment. Graphics aren't cheap. Those massive budgets you see these latest AAA games touting? Graphics are a huge chunk of that. And the higher the budget gets to make a game, the less companies you'll see that are able to make games for it. The less companies making games, the more stagnant the market gets. The more stagnant it gets, the more Call of Duties, Maddens, and Need For Speeds you'll see. Other series will succumb to sequelitis (milking a series far past it being good) since taking a risk on a new product could bankrupt a company. In a way, the push for the "shiniest graphics" has been a big reason why many smaller studios have resorted to XBLA and playstation network games. The only companies that can afford to drop hundreds of millions on a game are companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. and even they are having a hard time keeping up. Obviously the push for graphics isn't the only thing that caused this to happen, but it's a significant contributor to it.

Oh now your talking sense and we can't have that.

Although that also explains why folks in the industry are already hinting at this new generation being around for a ten year period before they'd update again.

Gives the companies time to settle in, get a good selection of games going, and those of us who buy them know we aren't looking at an upgrade in a couple of years. I think the fast switching consoles of the nineties are dead and gone.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

I'm not sure about that last part. The disappearing bodies is due to the frame rate drops that accompany the processors handling all the extra polygons... and models will likely get a big bump in poly count with the next generation commensurate with the bump in processing power. LOL, I remember when the original Gears of War came out with the annex game mode, they set the bodies to disappear after 30-60 seconds in an engine that was built to handle only 8 models at a time; when they added all the extra corpses you could trip over and manipulate, the frame rate eventually dropped to the single digits if the control point was near a spawn. It's quite likely that the new consoles would be able to handle the current console graphics with persistent bodies for the entirety of matches but likely we'll only see a partial increase in that part. Destructable environments I would hope would be a big improvement and we'll likely see if that's possible with BF4 since that was a big part of the franchise.

Yeah but what if we left the graphics at what they are right now, and only poured the additional power into things like destructible environment, more bodies/people/units on the screen at a time, and keeping the game at a smooth 60fps? Maybe the average game looks like Battlefield 3, but instead of a mere 16 people per side you can have a whopping 64 per side (on consoles). Instead of having bodies stay for only 30 seconds, they can stay for an hour, and you can support up to 500 on screen at once without ever going below 60fps. You could have massive destructible environments, with cratering, bullet holes, realistic physics and weather, and all sorts of crazy things. You would have immensely improved games, and to brutally honest, most people would never notice that the graphics were the same. Heck, they'd probably think they'd improved with all the new things happening on screen.

I would take that over pointlessly shiny graphics every day of the week. It's getting to the point where we're just having improved graphics to have a sticker on the box and bragging rights for when people have idiotic console wars on forums (not here, talking about sites like /v/, the escapist, etc.). The diminishing returns are getting smaller and smaller every cycle. At this point it's just becoming a detriment. Graphics aren't cheap. Those massive budgets you see these latest AAA games touting? Graphics are a huge chunk of that. And the higher the budget gets to make a game, the less companies you'll see that are able to make games for it. The less companies making games, the more stagnant the market gets. The more stagnant it gets, the more Call of Duties, Maddens, and Need For Speeds you'll see. Other series will succumb to sequelitis (milking a series far past it being good) since taking a risk on a new product could bankrupt a company. In a way, the push for the "shiniest graphics" has been a big reason why many smaller studios have resorted to XBLA and playstation network games. The only companies that can afford to drop hundreds of millions on a game are companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. and even they are having a hard time keeping up. Obviously the push for graphics isn't the only thing that caused this to happen, but it's a significant contributor to it.

You guys are aware that the tech needed to further enhance graphics is the same as the things that would power improved physics and handling of extra polygons for corpses.. right? You just debunked your own argument against improving graphical tech...

 Soladrin wrote:

You guys are aware that the tech needed to further enhance graphics is the same as the things that would power improved physics and handling of extra polygons for corpses.. right? You just debunked your own argument against improving graphical tech...

I do realize the first part and stated the same thing but I have no idea what you're talking about with the later. I'm not arguing against improving graphical tech.

Seeing what the 360 managed with 500mb of RAM and the PS3 with 256 i have high hopes for the lifetime of this generation.

Were it up to me personally i would put a lockdown on polycounts, subsurface scattering, tessellation, anisotropic filtering and global illumination (i.e anything that makes graphics look more 'real') and keep the games looking like Source. Imo game graphics have never needed to look better than HL2, if i blur my eyes and it looks real that's good enough for me. I wish they'd focus on animation, art design, frame-rate stability, physics, depth of interaction and scale. Not the arm hairs on the Navy seal or the way the world is reflected real time in Masterchief's Visor.

I'm not saying the tech doesn't need to be improved, I'm saying they should using it on things besides modeling individual hairs on a dog or giving us more lens flair.

The beheadings have begun!

Don Mattrick is the first to lose his head due to the disaster that is the Xbox 180° and all the things surrounding it. He will now work at Zynga.

Now finish that really, really unfriendly, hostile and aggressive Major Nelson and you're good to go.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The beheadings have begun!

Don Mattrick is the first to lose his head due to the disaster that is the Xbox 180° and all the things surrounding it. He will now work at Zynga.

Now finish that really, really unfriendly, hostile and aggressive Major Nelson and you're good to go.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will be overseeing the Xbox division temporarily following Mattrick's departure.

Yes because this is better.

 Perkustin wrote:
Seeing what the 360 managed with 500mb of RAM and the PS3 with 256 i have high hopes for the lifetime of this generation.

Were it up to me personally i would put a lockdown on polycounts, subsurface scattering, tessellation, anisotropic filtering and global illumination (i.e anything that makes graphics look more 'real') and keep the games looking like Source. Imo game graphics have never needed to look better than HL2, if i blur my eyes and it looks real that's good enough for me. I wish they'd focus on animation, art design, frame-rate stability, physics, depth of interaction and scale. Not the arm hairs on the Navy seal or the way the world is reflected real time in Masterchief's Visor.

Advancements in those things allow for larger renderings of lower quality things, so you will benefit either way.

More polygons on the screen can be used to make those arm hairs, but they can also be used to put more sprites on screen at once in a more modest looking game. Both games might have the same number of polygons on screen, but one of them looks more like what you're asking for.

I was hoping after some of the stupid comments Mattrick made that he'd leave but I was frankly hoping he'd go somewhere with intermittent or nonexistent internet access... like a submarine.

Grain of salt and all, since I can't find a source, but if this is true, this is very disappointing for the Xbone, especially with that inflated price tag.

 Fafnir wrote:


Grain of salt and all, since I can't find a source, but if this is true, this is very disappointing for the Xbone, especially with that inflated price tag.

I only found a spec comparison from end of june. I am not sure how accurate the information is but it does support your picture. And to get a feel for the difference in gaming power i found a 3D Mark 11 benchmark for both gpus: 1500 for the xbox one gpu and 1900 for the PS4 gpu.
If you compare those numbers to the fastest single gaming gpu (4700) you'll notice they are both miles away from serious gaming though

 Minx wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Grain of salt and all, since I can't find a source, but if this is true, this is very disappointing for the Xbone, especially with that inflated price tag.

I only found a spec comparison from end of june. I am not sure how accurate the information is but it does support your picture. And to get a feel for the difference in gaming power i found a 3D Mark 11 benchmark for both gpus: 1500 for the xbox one gpu and 1900 for the PS4 gpu.
If you compare those numbers to the fastest single gaming gpu (4700) you'll notice they are both miles away from serious gaming though

If you compare their numbers with the benchmarks of a PC at an identical price point, though, you probably get something different. Consoles have always aimed more at a "quality per dollar" market. They only have to beat the 500 dollar computers.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
If you compare their numbers with the benchmarks of a PC at an identical price point, though, you probably get something different. Consoles have always aimed more at a "quality per dollar" market. They only have to beat the 500 dollar computers.

You are right of course. If you built a PC for a similar price point you'll get a similar performance. And maybe i should have phrased that differently, the "serious gaming" label was just too hilarious though

Please don't try and bypass the language filter.

Reds8n

Im in real trouble here xbone dakka.

I have supported the ps4 and Sony thus far and honestly think they deserve my money but ultimately, all my friends are getting an xbone and I was thinking about how great ps4 games will look in a few years but then thought it wont be much fun on my own so I am really thinking about getting an xbone now. The storm in my mind though is how much of a graphical difference are we going to expect, are we talking like medium to high settings difference or minor bumps in detail? God I thought next gen would be happy times but right now I am finding it the hardest decision of my gaming experience.

For the next year or... 4 the difference is probably going to be just as un-noticable as ps3-xbox 360 comparisons. It takes a long time before devs learn all the tricks to get the most out of a new console.

 Soladrin wrote:
For the next year or... 4 the difference is probably going to be just as un-noticable as ps3-xbox 360 comparisons. It takes a long time before devs learn all the tricks to get the most out of a new console.

The xbox this gen was a slightly less powerful but easier to program compared with the PS3 and there was a noticeable difference for the first 3-4 years of this generation. With the xbone and ps4, the PS4 will have both advantages of a stronger processor and GPU as well as easier to program/utilize RAM (according to the limited info we have). If anything, we might see a slight but noticeable difference at the beginning and end but relative parity in the middle years.

 Soladrin wrote:
For the next year or... 4 the difference is probably going to be just as un-noticable as ps3-xbox 360 comparisons. It takes a long time before devs learn all the tricks to get the most out of a new console.

It is not even a question of "the next year or 4".

It is a question of exclusivity. Any game released on both PS4 and One are going to be developed in such a way that it utilizes the resources of each best, but done so as to minimize the necessity of developing a purely PS4 version and a purely One version.

Any titles developed specifically for the PS4 will be done in such a way that they utilize that hardware to its fullest, but multiplatform titles will not.

Ah thank you Kanluwen, that has eased my worry, greatly.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Please don't try and bypass the language filter.

Reds8n

What language filter? i was typing in english

"my message was something like this; doesn't matter how powerfull the syetems are if the game companies keep publishing buggy software"

 Kanluwen wrote:
It is not even a question of "the next year or 4".

It is a question of exclusivity. Any game released on both PS4 and One are going to be developed in such a way that it utilizes the resources of each best, but done so as to minimize the necessity of developing a purely PS4 version and a purely One version.

Any titles developed specifically for the PS4 will be done in such a way that they utilize that hardware to its fullest, but multiplatform titles will not.

Yeah, and it also depends who wins this generation of console wars. If Sony wins and the Playstation becomes the default platform that publishers get most of their sales on, then they'll write their games primarily for that market, and then port them to the X-Box as best they can. If Microsoft wins, then games will be written primarily for the X-Box, with games then getting ported over to the PS3.

The actual specs themselves never seem to be that big of a deal in how things turn out. I remember the endless conversations about the better anti-aliasing the PS3 had over the 360, but ultimately that just did not matter one bit compared to number of consoles sold drawing publishers to one machine or the other. Actually, go back a few console generations before that - I'm old enough and tragic enough to remember the console wars when the Amiga CD32 was trying to take on the N64 and the Megadrive - the CD32 had far greater power but no good games, which meant no-one bought it, which meant no good games and so on. Also that whole 'we have CDs now so we can make games in FMV' was never going to work.

I've been a diehard Xbox fan for years.
On this generation, I'm not sure which way I'm going to jump or even if I will.
No backwards compatibility means that it's tabula rasa time.
If I can't use my old games, then I don't have a reason to stay loyal to one console.
I use my console as a dvd player at the moment, so the new console will be doing the same thing. I want a Blu Ray player (I have HD TV already, and despite what some say, you can see a difference)
So I'll probably be going with whichever one is best value.
Most (if not all) the games I play are multi-platform so exclusives don't matter.
The final decision will come down to which is cheapest/best bundle deal.